Search

Purpose In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, support in clinical trials by students of human medicine and related disciplines has become of even greater importance than in pre-pandemic times. Documentation in clinical trials adheres to the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP), and healthcare professionals involved in the conduct of clinical trials—including students—are obliged to perform documentation in accordance with GCP principles. Unprecedented challenges have arisen with regard to the appropriate training of students as training courses in presence had largely to be suspended due to social-distancing regulations during the heyday of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, novel training formats and self-study training materials for students working in clinical trials are urgently warranted. Methods To overcome this shortcoming and to define a common quality standard, an interdisciplinary, multiprofessional (physicians, study nurses, medical students), and binational (Germany, The Netherlands) expert panel convened and devised the Students’ guide to documentation in clinical trials. Results Following a brief description of the different roles in clinical trials (e.g., sponsor, (principal) investigator, monitor) and an introduction into the principles of GCP, the documentation of adverse events, concomitant medication, medical history, and quality control are comprehensively discussed. The Guide concludes with a trilingual medical dictionary (English, German, Dutch) and with recommendations of pertinent literature for further reading. Conclusion Serving both as textbook for self-training and as (quick-) reference work for the daily routine, the Guide has specifically been designed to complement, but not to replace practical training courses for students. While primarily addressed at students of human medicine and related disciplines, the Guide can also be of high relevance and utility to other healthcare professionals involved in the conduct of clinical trials.

Bronchiectasis (BE) might be frequently present in COPD but masked by COPD symptoms. We studied the relationship of clinical signs of bronchiectasis to the presence and extent of its radiological signs in patients of different COPD severity. Visit 4 data (GOLD grades 1-4) of the COSYCONET cohort was used. Chest CT scans were evaluated for bronchiectasis in 6 lobes using a 3-point scale (0: absence, 1: ≤50%, 2: >50% BE-involvement for each lobe). 1176 patients were included (61%male, age 67.3y), among them 38 (3.2%) with reported physicians' diagnosis of bronchiectasis and 76 (6.5%) with alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency (AA1D). CT scans were obtained in 429 patients. Within this group, any signs of bronchiectasis were found in 46.6% of patients, whereby ≤50% BE occurred in 18.6% in ≤2 lobes, in 10.0% in 3-4 lobes, in 15.9% in 5-6 lobes; >50% bronchiectasis in at least 1 lobe was observed in 2.1%. Scores ≥4 correlated with an elevated ratio FRC/RV. The clinical diagnosis of bronchiectasis correlated with phlegm and cough and with radiological scores of at least 3, optimally ≥5. In COPD patients, clinical diagnosis and radiological signs of BE showed only weak correlations. Correlations became significant with increasing BE-severity implying radiological alterations in several lobes. This indicates the importance of reporting both presence and extent of bronchiectasis on CT. Further research is warranted to refine the criteria for CT scoring of bronchiectasis and to determine the relevance of radiologically but not clinically detectible bronchiectasis and their possible implications for therapy in COPD patients.

The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) is in widespread use for the evaluation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We assessed whether the CAT items carry additional information beyond the sum score regarding COPD characteristics including emphysema. Patients of GOLD grades 1 to 4 from the COPD cohort COSYCONET (German COPD and Systemic Consequences - Comorbidities Network) with complete CAT data were included (n = 2270), of whom 493 had chest CT evaluated for the presence of emphysema. Comorbidities and lung function were assessed following standardised procedures. Cross-sectional data analysis was based on multiple regression analysis of the single CAT items against a panel of comorbidities, lung function, or CT characteristics (qualitative score, 15th percentile of mean lung density), with age, BMI and gender as covariates. This was supported by exploratory factor analysis. Regarding the relationship to comorbidities and emphysema, there were marked differences between CAT items, especially items 1 and 2 versus 3 to 8. This grouping was basically confirmed by factor analysis. Items 4 and 5, and to a lower degree 1, 2 and 6, appeared to be informative regarding the presence of emphysema, whereas the total score was not or less informative. Regarding comorbidities, similar findings as for the total CAT score were obtained for the modified Medical Research Council scale (mMRC) which was also informative regarding emphysema. Our findings suggest that the usefulness of the CAT can be increased if evaluated on the basis of single items which may be indicating the presence of comorbidities and emphysema.